Is There a Dominion Mandate?

Abstract

This paper discusses the concept of the dominion mandate. It examines the key passages of Scripture in which the dominion mandate has found its origin. It explores the observational evidence of man’s interaction with nature and questions if there is any true dominion that can be observed. It then proceeds to examine the Bible for evidence of the original dominion of Adam being extant and offers a rebuttal to the idea of a dominion mandate with a counter position.

Introduction

A common position amongst young-earth
creationists, and even the wider evangelical
community, is that mankind has dominion on earth.
This means that mankind has been given a special
authority and rule over the creatures and the Creation.
This concept is so widely applied and held that it has
even earned a special doctrinal name, which is the
dominion mandate.

From this concept, it has been inferred by many
that a command was given to Adam, and all of his
descendants, to have dominion and rule over all
the animal kind, and the Creation. Therefore, all of
humanity are recipients of this perceived Adamic
dominion.

The dominion mandate, itself, is not named
nor defined in Scripture, and so offering a deeper
definition, which everyone can agree on, is not
possible. However, it is possible to locate where the
idea of the dominion mandate stems from. It is the
biblical passage in Genesis 1:26–28:

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image,
according to Our likeness; let them have dominion
over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and
over the cattle, over all the earth and over every
creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God
created man in His own image; in the image of God
He created him; male and female He created them.
Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be
fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it;
have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds
of the air, and over every living thing that moves on
the earth.”

In very clear language the Bible explains that man
was made in the image of God and was given dominion
over the creatures and was given the authority to
subdue the earth.

The Hebrew word for dominion in the biblical text
is râdâh. Râdâh means dominion, reign, to prevail
against, and rule. It can also mean subjugation, to
tread down upon, and even crumble off (Brown,
Driver, and Briggs 2008, p. 921; Strong 1979).

Within the context of the Creation, and then the
subsequent fall, one finds it quite moving at the lexical
range of râdâh. Adam had dominion and rule over
creation and within this reign and rule he had the
ability to sustain the good creation through obedience.
But equally so, Adam had the power to make the good
creation crumble and suffer if he was disobedient to
the command to not eat of the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil.

For those who understand the biblical narrative,
and what self-imposed trauma soon followed in
Adam’s life, the ability to have a dominion, and then
to utterly crumble all under his dominion is a sobering
reality. It is also a poignant reminder of the position
and power handed to man from the Creator at the
very beginning.

It is from these exalted beginnings in the good
creation that the dominion mandate has been
fashioned and formed by theologians to demonstrate
the importance and place of man. But does the so-called
dominion mandate assume too much?

The Theological Application of the Dominion Mandate

Using the concept of the Dominion Mandate
(among other concepts as well), creationists argue
against the evolutionary assertion that mankind
is just an accidental walking sac of bone and water
that somehow gained consciousness. Creationists,
rather, argue mankind has a distinct purpose and
plan endowed by the Creator and use the dominion
mandate as a doctrinal proof of this assertion.

But the dominion mandate does not stop there. It
has been given an extraordinary weight of explanation
over a wide swath of issues. The dominion mandate
has been used as the reason why aliens cannot exist
or visit earth (Bates 2010, p. 378). It is used to argue
why man is morally allowed to clone animals (Sarfati
2002), and it is used as a call for good stewardship over
the environment (Wieland and Sarfati 2002). Some
extend it to mean that we should exercise dominion
over our “personalities and abilities” (Erickson 2009,
p. 535) and that we should even be able to predict
and control the actions of the Creation due to this
dominion (Erickson 2009, p. 529).

The breadth of its application is a bit overwhelming
and is the first red flag. When some singular ideal
is used as the proof argument for topics as widely
different as these, then one should recognize that
the ideal must not be precisely defined; for it is being
employed as a proof argument on topics which are not
necessarily closely related.

More problems arrive when the dominion mandate
is treated like a command from God.

One creationist wrote: “This ‘dominion mandate,’
as it has been called, is in effect a command to ‘do
science …’” (Morris 2010, p. 4).

Another uses surprisingly strong language and
wrote that God, “… [God] ordered mankind to ‘subdue’
the earth—also known as the dominion mandate
(Genesis 1:28)” (Bates 2010, p. 378).

Overstating the case by saying this dominion
mandate is an order or a command has wide
consequences to the biblical narrative. With an order
or command comes an implied obedience to the one
to whom it was given. Therefore, the idea of an order
being inserted into that particular passage places an
extra burden of obedience on Adam before the Fall
beyond just not eating of the fruit of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil.

Therefore, this additional command leads to the
question that if Adam failed to subdue the earth,
before the Fall, would that have been a sin? If so,
what would the consequence be? Would Adam have
been banished from of the Garden? Would that have
brought condemnation to all mankind?

As one can see, it is not such an easy proposition
to casually refer to dominion as a command. It is
imperative to understand that there were no other
moral obligations that Adam had other than to refrain
from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil. For without eating of the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil, there would not have been any sin or
moral failures.

There was no wider, broader law of God that Adam
was under. There was no commandment to keep the
Sabbath holy or any other command outside of the
one, as some have suggested. To assume any part
of the Torah, which was given to Moses to govern
the nation of Israel, which in turn laid out the path
to redemption because of the original sin, actually
applied to Adam before the original sin, is a flawed
understanding of the entire plan of God and the road
to redemption.

Also notice that this dominion was not described as
a command in the biblical text. The biblical language
of ‛âśâh, which many modern translations render
“… Let Us make …” in Genesis 1:26, means to appoint,
bestow, have charge of, grant, advance (Brown, Driver,
and Briggs 2008; Strong 1979).

Therefore, this passage is best understood to mean
a right was passed from the Godhead to Adam. What
was given to Adam was a position of dominion and
it was an endowment, an appointment; something
bestowed, a position that was granted. It was not an
order that was given.

We see the same usage as this for ‛âśâh in
1 Kings 12:31 (English Standard Version translation):
“He also made temples on high places and appointed
[‛âśâh] priests from among all the people, who were
not of the Levites.”

This understanding of ‛âśâh, in this context,
being a position of appointment enjoys the collective
agreement by the biblical scholars who worked on
important biblical translations in history.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after
our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish
of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over
the livestock and over all the earth and over every
creeping thing that creeps on the earth” (Genesis 1:26
English Standard Version).

And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after
our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish
of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the
cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping
thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:26
King James Version).

Furthermore God said, Let vs make man in our image
according to our lickenes, and let them rule ouer the
fish of the sea, and the ouer the foule of the heauen,
and ouer the beastes, & ouer all the earth, and ouer
the beastes, & ouer all the earth, and ouer euerie
thing that crepeth & moueth on the earth (Genesis 1:26
The Geneva Bible 1560).

Make we man to oure ymage and liknesse, and be he
soueryn to the fischis of the see, and to the volatilis
of heuene, and to vnresonable beestis of erthe, and
to ech creature, and to ech crepynge beest, which is
moued in erthe (Genesis 1:26
The Wycliffe Bible of 1388).

Then God said, “Let us make humankind according
to our image and according to our likeness, and let
them rule the fish of the sea and the birds of the
sky and the cattle and all the earth and all creeping
things that creep upon the earth (Genesis 1:26
New English Translation of the Septuagint).

The key phrase of “Let us make” (‛âśâh) applies
to the image of man but then again to the dominion
of man, which we see rendered, “let them have
dominion, let them rule, and be he sovereign.” It is
very clear that a commanding position was being
given to man, which is different from “commanding
man to command,” which is how those championing a
dominion mandate have rendered it in concept.

The burden of proof to reestablish dominion as a
forceful demand from God to Adam, which required
obedience, must lie with proponents of the dominion
mandate for it breaks from precedent.
In contrast, let us look at how God does issue a
command. Genesis 2:16–17 reads:

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of
every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not
eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely
die.”

The Hebrew word in this passage for “commanded”
is tsâvâh. This word is absent in Genesis 1:26–28,
and notice the difference between Genesis 1:26–28
and Genesis 2:16–17. In the latter, the command to
not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
was paired with a consequence if that command was
disobeyed. Neither this Hebrew word for command
nor a consequence is found in Genesis 1:26–28 when
discussing the dominion of man.

The idea that dominion was a command to Adam
is alien to the biblical text. What is relayed in the
Jewish Scriptures, which all respected translations
remain true to, is that God, before the Fall, let Adam
have a position of authority in creation.

Pre-Fall Environment

We also understand that in the beginning, before
the Fall, Adam lived in an environment that was
much different from our environment today. A pre-Fall world would have been fundamentally different,
and just because something was applicable before the
Fall does not mean it is applicable after the Fall (and
the reverse of this is also true.)

Furthermore, we understand that the natural
environment itself was different in a pre-Fall
format. In Genesis 3:17 it is explained that the
ground was cursed after the Fall and it became an
obstacle to man. Which, on face value, appears to
be a contradiction to the idea of man maintaining
dominion over it.

Therefore, it is prudent to explore the post-Fall
world and see if there is naturalistic evidence of man’s
dominion over nature and over the animal kind.

Dominion over Nature

Earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, floods, hail,
wild fires, volcanoes, meteor strikes, etc. do not
demonstrate an obedience to man’s reign or will.
Natural disasters often put mankind at their mercy.
These things demonstrate occurrences that force
man to respond to them as best as man can. In the
present natural environment, conditions are adverse
and man’s ingenuity sometimes overcomes, but
sometimes it does not. Man is killed by acts of nature
every year.

However, Yeshua (Jesus) demonstrated that He did
have dominion over nature in the calming of the seas.
The Bible records for us that the Last Adam displayed
an authority, a dominion, over creation.

In contrast to Yeshua, fallen man has no such
command or rule over nature. The disciples of Messiah
were amazed that the sea obeyed the command of
Messiah (Luke 8:24–25). The disciples obviously did
not have dominion over creation, but they witnessed
someone who did.

In addition to destructive events, there are thorns,
thistles, and weeds, which choke out the farmers
crops. These also do not demonstrate an obedience to
the will of the farmer, nor do all the insects which
feed on the roots of the crops. In fact, in today’s post-
Fall environment, growing crops is best likened to
engaging in “warfare” in the soil.1

Does the “Dominion Mandate” Imply, and/or is
it Achieved through Technological Advances?

It has been suggested to this author, that the
Adamic dominion implies the work to subdue the
forces of nature like creating air conditioning and
inventing polio vaccinations, etc.

Let no one be confused. Dominion is not the attempt
or work to try to subdue.

Nowhere is the struggle to overcome actually
labeled the victory. Likewise, nor should the struggle
against nature be labeled as the dominion.

One may have air conditioning, but many still
fall to heat stroke. Let us not be too confident in
the technological prowess we achieve. A quick walk
through a wing at a hospital that treats terminally
ill patients will solve our pride in believing we have
achieved dominion over disease because we have
created a few vaccinations.

Furthermore, the whole idea that a demonstration
of our original Adamic dominion is seen in our creation
of polio vaccinations, etc. is untenable. How low,
distorted, and impotent our view of true dominion is,
when we liken dominion to needing to stab our fleshly
bodies with metal needles which introduce foreign
entities into our body, precisely because mankind has
been made ill or killed by entities that have already
invaded our bodies precisely because they did not
recognize our dominion.

It is poor reasoning to conclude that our responses
to our lack of dominion are the actual demonstration
of our dominion. Many have thought themselves into
confusion in the hopes of hanging on to a human rule.

Hurricane Sandy

Even further evidence of man’s lack of dominion over
nature has been seen in catastrophic levels recently.
The United States mobilized some of the most robust
tools and resources in mankind’s history to contend
against the effects of Hurricane Sandy. Yet, no one
in their right mind would say that those emergency
workers in the affected areas are exhibiting and
achieving dominion over the wrath of Sandy.

In fact, what Hurricane Sandy has shown, is that
man, in one of the most technologically advanced
areas the world has ever seen, has zero dominion over
his environment when nature does the unexpected.
Hurricane Sandy has, in effect, made a farce of any
dominion we think we have.

As a warning, the theological/apologist community
opens itself up to extraordinary attack from the
secular world if key members continue to promote
such a dominion over nature.

Dominion over Animals

Lions, bears, rhinoceroses, sharks, snakes, sting
rays etc. do not demonstrate a subjection to man’s will.
As man migrates into more of their territory we see
the instances of animal attacks increase. It is obvious
the animal kingdom does not demonstrate subjection
to man even though Adam was given dominion over
these creatures in Genesis 1:28.

Everyone can observe man’s lack of dominion over
life forms every day if one just pays attention. Every
time a tick is pulled from the skin, a mosquito bites, a
mouse scurries across the floor, a fish does not bite the
bait is a demonstration that these creatures recognize
no dominion or wish of man.

So strong is the case that man was eager to create
insect repellants and other devices (mouse traps, etc.)
as a response to the creatures blatant insubordination.
We must protect our homes against pests (think
termites) because they will and do invade our places
even though our strongest will is that they would not.
These creatures do not recognize our domain. These
creatures will not heed a rebuke and so we fight back
to kill the invaders.

However, often these encounters between man and
beast go beyond a simple annoyance.

An Australian zookeeper was attacked by the very
elephant she was caring for. CNN reported that:

A zookeeper was in stable condition at a Sydney
hospital Saturday, a day after she was crushed by
a young male elephant during a training session
(Anonymous 2012a).

Some elephants have been successfully
domesticated, but the majority of elephants remain a
danger to humans if boundaries are violated. Even
so-called domesticated creatures still remain a viable
threat to humans. This obvious threat challenges the
central idea that man has an extant dominion over
the animal kind.

Another exhibit of the lack of man’s dominion over
the animal kind is this terrible and terrifying example
of the pet python who killed a toddler.

The python apparently escaped from the confines of
its cage overnight and strangled the toddler. Darnell,
the snake’s owner stabbed the snake in order to free
the girl from the snake’s death grip. Charles was able
to pull the two-year-old free before calling 911.
Despite paramedic’s efforts to revive the 2-year-old, she
was pronounced dead at the scene (Roberts 2009).

A power of the biblical faith is that it is an immensely
practical faith, which is able to be confirmed by
naturalistic evidence. This practicality is one reason
why the Bible is so successful in providing comfort
and understanding when tragedy strikes.

However, there is zero understanding, and zero
comfort that can be given if one is going to counsel
the grieving mother by explaining that the child and
she had dominion over that snake. Obviously, the
dominion, will, and force of the snake was imposed by
the snake upon the child, regardless of the will, rule,
authority, or dominion of any human in that house.
To believe in the dominion mandate of Adam, not only
doesn’t work, but is an attack and an affront to reason
when faced with reality.

A leopard seal killed a snorkeling scientist, as
reported on August 6, 2003 by National Geographic
News,

The death of a British marine biologist in Antarctica
last month [July 22] is thought to be the first human
fatality caused by a leopard seal (Hydrurga leptonyx).
But scientists fear further seal attacks as the number
of people working in the region continues to rise.
Kirsty Brown was dragged underwater by the seal
while snorkeling near Rothera research station on
the Antarctic Peninsula.

Horrified colleagues from the British Antarctic Survey
(BAS) scrambled a rescue boat and managed to pull
Brown from the water. Despite trying to resuscitate
her for an hour, the station doctor was unable to save
the 28-year-old (Owen 2003).

A large problem is that many theologians and
biblical apologists are carefully insulated behind the
non-biting pages of books, and the non-lethal pixels of
computer screens. They have become solely document
explorers. This separation and isolation from true
wilderness, and the animals that inhabit it, creates a
situation where people have their perceptions hijacked
by the conceptual without ever engaging the reality of
the natural.

Many, who promote the dominion mandate, seem
to be naïve to the extraordinary fact, that when
humanity does encounter creatures in the wild, it can
become a precarious situation for the humans. The
leopard seal acknowledged no respect for the scientist
and the scientist was unable to exert any dominion
over the animal. The evidence shows that the human
encroached on the territory of the animal, and the
animal killed the human. This certainly does not
demonstrate that mankind has a dominion over the
animal kingdom. It demonstrates that whoever or
whatever has the upper hand can come out on top.
The idea that man kept Adam’s dominion simply does
not work when the evidence is weighed.

Even man’s best friend can become a dangerous
threat. KFBB of Montana, reported that:

A three year old, bit in the face by a dog, thankfully
will make a full recovery. This isn’t an uncommon
situation. Dogs are animals and while they can be the
best of pets, they can be dangerous (Ousley 2012).

So even the most trusted of all animals can turn
on people. This certainly does not demonstrate a
dominion over the animal kind.

Furthermore, every pet must be trained through
violence in some degree to recognize the wishes
of man. It is not a true dominion. And without
demonstrating consequences regularly, any obedience
will dissipate. Any animal expert will also tell you to
never fully trust an animal. But, if one cannot fully
trust a subject, is that entity truly subjected? The
answer is no.

The Calgary Sun reported that a young girl was
able to survive a cougar attack because the father was
able to rescue her.

A six-year-old girl was walking on a trail in the
Barrier Lake day-use area of Bow Valley Provincial
Park Sunday evening about 85 km west of Calgary
with her mother, father and nine-year-old brother
when a cougar leaped from the trees on the side of
the path.

“The girl’s father, who was walking in front of her,
heard the commotion and turned around to find
the cat attacking his daughter”, said Glenn Naylor,
district conservation officer with Alberta Parks in
Canmore.

“He yelled and tried to scare it off by throwing a
water bottle.”

The cat — a male less than two years old and weighing
about 36 kg—retreated, leaving the girl with minor
cuts and puncture wounds.

“I think they were lucky that she was close by her
father, that he reacted the way he did and that it was
a small cat,” said Naylor, noting many cougar attacks
are on children because of their size (McMurray
2011).

These attacks are not consistent with the claim
that man has dominion. The evidence suggests that
nature is at odds with man and that animals do not
respect a dominion of man.

An adult man on Vancouver Island had to escape
an attack by a hungry cougar according to the
Huffington Post:

Fearing for his life, a 38-year-old Vancouver Island
man says he ran from the fangs and claws of a ravenous
cougar and scaled a hefty piece of construction
equipment in a desperate bid to escape.

With his pants shredded by the cougar’s jaws and a
shoe lost along the way thanks to a swipe from the
animal’s claws, John Frank Jr. said he climbed a
locked-up excavator’s boom and called for help on his
radio.

The community of Ahousat, B.C., located north of
Tofino, B.C., on the island’s west coast, responded to
Tuesday’s attack, with some residents arriving on
scene in their trucks, scaring the cougar away.

“I was attacked. There’s no two ways about it,”
Frank told The Canadian Press in an interview on
Wednesday. “The cougar wanted to eat me as a meal”
(Drews 2012).

Those who have dominion do not usually have to
climb construction equipment to escape those they
have dominion over. Nor do those who are under the
dominion of another try to eat that authority figure.

The Wall Street Journal reported that in February
of 2010, a killer whale killed Sea World trainer Dawn
Brancheau during a live performance. The orca
dragged her into the water by her ponytail, which
caused her to be scalped, and then after a combination
of blunt force trauma’s and drowning, the patrons
witnessed that trainer die (Last 2012).

The victim, Brancheau did not have dominion
over the orca. Therefore, the dominion of Adam has
failed.

Some orcas have been domesticated to a point where
they remain in captivity and can even be used in
shows for paying customers. However, there are times
when no amount of training can stop an otherwise
domesticated whale from killing its caretaker.

Therefore, the cooperation of the killer whale is
highly conditional, and obviously, mankind has yet
to abide by all of those conditions that killer whales
require of us. For when the conditions are not present,
as determined solely by the orca, people can die. It
is important to note the orca participation must be
coerced, man cannot force the participation, and
ultimately, the conditions are either acceptable to the
orca, or not. It is not the other way around, which the
Adamic mandate would suggest.

Even non-carnivorous animals that are in a
pattern of being cared for, and are, to all intents
and purposes, domesticated so that they can serve a
use to humanity, can be lethal without warning. At
Select Sires, one of the premier Bovine facilities in the
world, a young man was crushed to death by a bull.
The Columbus Dispatch reported,

A 24-year-old man died yesterday after he was
crushed by a bull at a farm near Plain City in Union
County. William “Logan” Krebehenne, of Richwood,
was pronounced dead at 3:09 p.m. at Dublin Methodist
Hospital following the incident, the sheriff’s office
announced this morning (Ludlow 2012).

The attack was completely unprovoked. It was
simply a case of a large animal inexplicably turning
on its caretaker and killing him without warning.

In Nepal, CNN reported that a frightened district
has put up a reward for a leopard that has identified
humans as the prey of choice.

A ferocious leopard may have killed 15 people in
Nepal in a 15-month span, its latest victim a 4-year-old
boy that the creature dragged away into the jungle
to eat.

The head of boy was found in the forest a kilometer
from his home Saturday morning, said Kamal
Prasad Kharel, the police chief of the Baitadi district,
an area about 600 kilometers (373 miles) west of
Kathmandu.

The grisly discovery, which came after teams of people
searched for the child, marks the 15th victim in the
past 15 months in that remote district in western
Nepal (Shrestha 2012).

The theological doctrine of man having dominion
over the animal kind is having no impact on the
leopard feeding on them who supposedly have the
dominion. Man’s world of theology needs to wake up
to reality.

A young boy was killed at the Pittsburgh Zoo when
he fell into an African wild dog exhibit.

A group of African painted dogs killed a boy who fell
into their exhibit today at the Pittsburgh Zoo.

Barbara Baker, the zoo’s president, said the child was
around 3 years old.

He “fell off an observation deck that’s about 14 feet
above the exhibit,” she said, “and was killed by the
dogs.”

“Our emergency teams and our Pittsburgh police
responded immediately, but there wasn’t anything
that could be done,” added Baker.

The boy fell into the enclosure at 11:45 a.m., and visitors
quickly alerted staff, the zoo said in a statement.
A zookeeper moved seven of the 11 dogs out of the
exhibit, and a Veterinarian Department member shot
darts trying to scare away the remaining dogs.

“Unfortunately, the dogs were in pack mentality and
not responding,” the zoo said (Anonymous 2012b).

Even in captivity, when well fed, these dogs
recognized nothing but a meal and did not respond
to the humans when they were attacking the victim.
It is untenable to think that this boy, or any zoo
employee, had dominion over these creatures. This is
another tragic situation where the animal kingdom
showed its violent animosity against mankind. To
think that mankind has kept the Adamic dominion is
an incredulous notion.

It is in the real world, discussing real life and death
situations, that the doctrine of the dominion mandate
appears completely absurd at face value. In fact, the
only way to argue for some sort of dominion over the
animals, is to redefine what rule and authority is,
much like old-earth creationists who have redefined
the meaning of a day.

Fox News reported another notable incident:

A 24-year-old man was mauled to death Sunday
morning while cleaning a grizzly bear enclosure at
a wildlife casting agency in southwestern Montana,
Gallatin County officials said.

The man was mauled by one or both of the captive-bred
grizzly bears at the Animals of Montana facility
north of Bozeman, Sheriff Brian Gootkin said.

The victim’s name wasn’t immediately released, but
officials said he’s originally from Pennsylvania.

Chuck Watson, attorney for Animals of Montana’s
owner, Troy Hyde, told the Bozeman Daily Chronicle
the grizzly bear had to be put down in order to recover
the victim. “It’s obviously a tragic situation, and I
don’t think we’ll ever know exactly what happened,”
Watson said (Anonymous 2012c).

The evidence demonstrates that beasts often kill
man when man enters their domain. The evidence
demonstrates that mankind and the animal kingdom
are opponents and the one who gets the upper
hand can have control over the situation as long as
circumstances do not abruptly change.

The Washington Post reported that a violent bee
attack left one dead and two injured.

A hiker died Monday after he was attacked by a
swarm of bees and fell about 150 feet off a cliff at
a popular recreation area in Phoenix, authorities
said. … Two other hikers were airlifted out after each
was stung about 300 times. Paramedics said both
men were hospitalized in serious but stable condition
and expected to recover.

Fire officials said the three men were attacked by
bees about 3:45 p.m. on a trail near Ice Box Canyon.
The two survivors hid in a small crevice to avoid the
swarm until rescuers arrived.

Some of the rescue workers wore white protective
suits to keep them from also being stung (Anonymous
2012d).

An unbiased mind would never come to the
conclusion that the dead man at the bottom of the
canyon, and the two men hiding in the crevice, had
dominion over the bees attacking them. Neither could
the unbiased individual think that the rescuers had
dominion, for they were wearing protective gear
precisely so they could survive an attack from the
bees.

It is a safe assumption that the majority of the
unruly bees escaped from being punished by the
humans for their act of insurrection. Then, if this
is true, it would prove that the humans were firstly,
powerless to enforce their dominion by evidence that
they were attacked, and secondly, they are shown to
be hopelessly powerless to punish the offenders after
the act. If governance is incapable of prevention, and
then is shown to be incapable of punishment, then it
is not governance, and no dominion of any kind can be
shown. This Adamic dominion mandate is simply not
demonstrable when the naturalistic evidence is taken
seriously.

But what does this position of a defunct Adamic
dominion do with James 3:7 which states:

For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and
creature of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by
mankind.

Yes, every kind can be. But this does not translate
to every one of every kind. Some orcas have been used
successfully in shows at Sea World. Others, as we
have seen, have killed their trainers.

Some tigers have been trained for shows and have
performed well. Another tiger seized his trainer by the
head and neck and dragged him off stage (Anonymous
2003). That tiger opted to exhibit its dominion over
the man.

Painful facts still remain facts, even if theologians
and apologists don’t like them. Mankind must deal
with the fact that things will happen that man, acting
in the natural, cannot prevent regardless of their
strongest will or wish. Nothing about these situations
demonstrates dominion. What is demonstrated is that
mankind must build up defenses of all kinds for the
precise reason that we do not have dominion. Simply
put, there is no recognition of our dominion by the
animal kingdom and a king without subjects is only a
king in their own mind.

Also, one should not confuse having dominion with
being on top of the food chain, either. Dominion is rule
and reign. Humanity is certainly on top of the food
chain under most circumstances, but in some cases,
animals eat man.

Therefore, since nature indicates a lack of
recognition of man’s dominion both in environmental
occurrences (floods, hurricanes, earthquakes,
volcanoes, tornadoes) and in animals (at odds with
creatures), then how does this observed evidence
square with Adam being given dominion over nature
in Genesis 1?

Was Dominion Relinquished?

A simple question that can be asked is—is there an
event, which occurred that could have taken dominion
over creation away from Adam, and subsequently,
mankind?

There is a catastrophic event in Genesis 3:6 when
Adam disobeyed the instruction of the Lord and ate
from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The
Bible instructs that through Adam’s disobedience that
death came to all creation, man and nature
(Romans 5:12, 8:20–21).

The Bible also instructs the way creatures interact
with man drastically changed, for God put the fear of
humans within the animals after the Flood (Genesis 9:2).
Therefore, any spirit of obedience to man the
animals did have is now altered by God. Therefore,
man’s rule of the animal kingdom is fundamentally
changed from what it was in a pre-Fall format and
God is the one who changed it (as a consequence to
Adam’s sin).

It should be noted this change is what is seen today.
Most animals are afraid of humans, and out of fear we
see fight or flight. Another change in man and animal
interaction from before the Fall is that animals are
now allowed to be used by man for food (Genesis 9:3).
Therefore, animals are given into man’s hand as prey
to the predator.

It is clearly seen that man’s relationship over the
creatures is not dominion over loyal subjects. Rather
animals are prey, and they often flee from man who
is the predator and fleeing is a telltale sign of not
obeying the pursuer. Yet sometimes, as cited in this
article, the animals exhibit lethal dominion over
man, which flatly contradicts the idea that man has
dominion over animals.

But, as one can see, our observed lack of
dominion over the animal kind is confirming to the
biblical narrative. The Bible gives us a history of
the relationship between man and animal. In the
beginning, man had dominion and harmony with
the animal kind and all of nature. Neither man nor
animal viewed the other as predator or prey and
Adam was given the mantle of being ruler over the
Creation. Then, the biblical history explains how that
changed due to Adam’s sin. Ultimately, God, Himself,
significantly changed the relationship between man
and all of creation.

To deny that man’s dominion was lost, is to deny
Scripture, the effects of the sinful Fall, and the
observed evidence of man and animal interaction
today. The only place the Adamic Dominion can find
support is within the pride of man, for evidence of it
being extant is absent absolutely everywhere else.

Can the Original Dominion be Redefined?

Some have taken the opportunity to redefine what
the Adamic dominion implied. As an example: is there
now a moral dominion that man must preside over
as one reviewer suggested? This should go without
stating, but the dominion in Genesis states nothing
about a moral dominion in the context of where the
conceptual dominion mandate comes from.

But, if we are free to start inventing dominions, one
supposes we could create a moral dominion for man
to reside over. But, how could mankind be trusted
with a moral dominion after the Fall, when Adam
was unable to be trusted with a piece of fruit before it
while all of his morality was still intact?

Making things up is never the answer to solving
biblical questions. Sticking to the simple language
in the divinely inspired text is where the answers
reside.

And according to Psalm 14:2–3

The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children
of men, to see if there are any who understand, who
seek God. They have all turned aside, they have
together become corrupt; there is none who does good,
no, not one.

It does not appear the Lord puts any stock in
man being able to maintain a moral dominion.
Furthermore, the rest of the biblical narrative provides
a Savior precisely because mankind is incapable of
having a successful moral dominion.

Redefining what the original dominion means may
be acceptable in theological circles, but it should not
be accepted in biblical circles.

According to most Theologians, Man has Dominion(s).
But, does the Bible Actually Teach Something Different?

Does the Bible give us any indication that something
else, other than mankind, may have dominion over
the earth?

This is the key to the discussion. Are we willing to
take in the whole counsel of the written Word of God,
or do we simply stop reading after Genesis chapter 2
irrespective of what happens next?

First of all, the Bible clearly teaches that man does
not have a dominion over creatures on earth after the
Fall.

The Leviathan was a creature used as a teaching
tool to Job, by God, as an instrument to demonstrate
that it would not submit to man (Job 41:1–8).
Likewise, the behemoth in Job 40:24, God issued the
challenge to try to pierce the nose of the behemoth,
with a snare, which is the technique used to try to
control big beasts like oxen and such.

Clearly, mankind had no rule over these creatures
who were used as examples by God, Himself, to
demonstrate to Job that Job did not have control, right,
or might over his environment—all of the things that
a dominion would imply. Furthermore, one would find
it difficult arguing with Job that he had dominion
over anything at all. The appointed Adamic dominion
simply fails to be seen in the post-Fall biblical
environment as described in the book of Job.

According to Ephesians 2:1–3, sinful man is
following someone else, which implies an obedience
to, or a dominion under another.

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses
and sins, in which you once walked according to the
course of this world, according to the prince of the
power of the air, the spirit who now works in the
sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once
conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling
the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by
nature children of wrath, just as the others.

Here we learn unrepentant man is following
another who is the prince of the power of the air.
Revelation 2:13 goes deeper into this prince.

I know your works, and where you dwell, where
Satan’s throne is. And you hold fast to My name,
and did not deny My faith even in the days in which
Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was killed
among you, where Satan dwells.

This is a fascinating passage because this
is Messiah speaking to John. And Messiah is
mentioning the throne of Satan. A throne certainly is
consistent with having some sort of dominion, which
is consistent with Satan being called the prince of the
power of the air in the passage in Ephesians 2:1–3.
We also see the throne of Satan is spoken of as if on
earth. It then follows that where one has a throne, one
has a measure of dominion and this is consistent with
what we learn in Job 1:7 that Satan roams around on
the earth.

This idea of Satan having a dominion or an authority
on earth is further developed in other passages. There
is an enlightening interchange between Messiah and
Satan recorded in Matthew 4:8–10:

Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high
mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the
world and their glory. And he said to Him, “All these
things I will give You if You will fall down and worship
me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan!
For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your
God, and Him only you shall serve.’”

Satan presents himself to Messiah as the authority
of earth, and the one who had authority to give to
Messiah the kingdoms of the world. Yeshua did not
rebuke that claim by Satan. Rather, He rebuked the
claim that anyone can be worshiped besides God. It
was by this rebuke in which He did exercise authority
over Satan (therefore Satan has no authority over the
Lord, but rather over that which has fallen).

Satan having a throne and presenting himself
as one having authority on earth are confirming
accounts of an implied dominion of Satan. This claim
to earthly things by Satan is seen again in the book
of Jude when Satan is disputing with the archangel
Michael over the body of Moses (Jude 1:9). Of course,
Michael rebuked Satan in the name of the Lord and
that ceased the discourse.

Therefore, we do see God the Father exercising
supreme authority, but one cannot deny that there
was a claim of authority that Satan believed he had
over the fallen. It was one that even our Messiah did
not directly rebuke at the time (though He rebuked
Satan’s request to be worshiped).

This idea of Satan having dominion on earth
is seen again when Paul wrote of how man can be
delivered from Satan’s domain via the redemption
offered through Messiah in Colossians 1:13–14:

He has delivered us from the power of darkness and
conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,
in whom we have redemption through His blood, the
forgiveness of sins.

So clearly, the dominion, which was active on
earth, was one of darkness and one of death by the
time Messiah arrived. And we know that death is
the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:26),
and Messiah came to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8),
which is sin and consequently death.

It then follows that earth, which is under the
domain of sin and death was therefore under some
kind of domain of Satan. This is consistent with Satan
having a throne on earth and Satan believing he had
the authority to offer the kingdoms of the world to
Messiah during the period of temptation. However,
the Bible is clear that Satan cannot move outside of
the will of God (Job 1:12).

However, this occurrence still does no good to
man’s own claim of a dominion mandate for ourselves.
Man’s dominion is noticeably absent in these post-Fall
discussions of dominion, powers, death, and sin.

After the Fall, the battle is between the dominion
of darkness and then the dominion of Messiah. In
the New Covenant Scriptures we clearly see the
developed theme of Adam’s dominion being lost to sin,
death, and darkness by Adam at the Fall, and then
Messiah (the last Adam) restoring what was lost and
establishing an eternal dominion and kingdom that
cannot fail.

The biblical narrative, from start to finish,
certainly develops this concept and we see something
happen to the dominion of darkness that was ushered
in after the Fall. In the Scriptures, written in the
post-resurrection time, there is a common theme
that a dominion of Messiah has been established,
for Ephesians 1:22–23 states that all things are put
under the feet of Messiah.

And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him
to be head over all things to the church, which is His
body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

This occurred after Messiah was willfully subjected
under the dominion of darkness and death before he
was resurrected as is explained in Romans 6:9–11:

… knowing that Christ, having been raised from the
dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion
over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin
once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed
to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

So the actual dominion that even Messiah was
temporarily subjected to (via the cross) was sin and
death. The Bible is also expressively clear that mankind
is under this same dominion, but this changes when
one is born again. Romans 6:14 explains:

For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are
not under law but under grace.

The Bible, with redundancy, reinforces this point of
Messiah having dominion. 1 Peter 4:11 states:

If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God.
If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability
which God supplies, that in all things God may be
glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the
glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

This passage teaches that it is the way of the
believer to glorify the Lord with every thought, word,
and action. This demonstrates that the born again
are in submission to another dominion, for all the
believers’ acts are done in the service of another not in
the service of self, or in the service of furthering their
own dominion or reign. And according to this passage
in 1 Peter, it is Messiah to whom this dominion, in
which the born again belong.

1 Peter continues in 5:10–11:

But may the God of all grace, who called us to His
eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after you have suffered
a while, perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle you.
To Him be the glory and the dominion forever and
ever. Amen.

Messiah has Dominion

It is a difficult notion to successfully argue, at
this point, that man has dominion, when the Bible
says Yeshua, the Messiah has dominion. It would be
equally difficult to argue that God is mandating man
to take dominion—for are we to wrestle it away from
the Messiah He sent? Certainly not.

It certainly seems the biblical narrative teaches
that God recognized Adam’s failure to sustain a good
dominion, and He gave it to His Son whom He knows
will successfully do what Adam failed to do.

Furthermore, unsaved man is in enslaved to sin
(Romans 6:6). This is to say sin has dominion and
authority over unrepentant man.

The gospel is that Messiah frees the repentant
sinner from this bondage and takes the born again
out from the dominion of sin and darkness and places
them in the kingdom and dominion of our Lord.
John records that this domain of Messiah is forever
established. Revelation 1:5–6 states:

… and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the
firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings
of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from
our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and
priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and
dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Yeshua’s dominion is forever. It will never fail, it is
firmly established and it will never be handed over
to darkness and death like Adam’s dominion. And
those who are born again, have been removed from
the former dominion of sin and placed into Messiah’s
dominion (Romans 6:14).

Therefore, apart from the Savior, it is not man’s
dominion which fallen man is under; it is the dominion
of sin. Sin and death came from the Curse, which was
the work of Satan in which Messiah came to destroy
(1 John 3:8).

As a point of clarification, this dominion of
Messiah should not be misconstrued as endorsing
amillenialism, or a preterist theology. The literal
1,000 year reign is still to come.

Old Testament Displays of Power

The Old Testament is a foundational Scripture
upon which all the New Testament is built. It is one
that constructs precept upon precept, covenant upon
covenant and looks forward to the completion and
eternal fulfillment of the Torah and the prophets
through Messiah’s life, death, and resurrection. Once
the fall of Adam was complete and man’s greatness
was lost, Scripture immediately began building
toward the greatness of Messiah (Genesis 3:15).

Therefore, the various acts of power of the Old
Testament prophets should not be misconstrued as
Adam’s dominion being displayed, for that is defunct,
but rather miraculous acts are precursors to and for
the coming Messiah and His dominion.

Therefore, the Jewish Messiah was positioned from
Genesis 3:15 forward, to be the Deliverer from the
domain of sin and death (Romans 11:26) which Adam
wrought. The plan of God was never aimed to reestablish
Adam’s dominion—man’s dominion. Rather, it was
to establish and sustain the preeminence of Messiah
(Colossians 1:18) and His dominion forever and ever.

An Opposing View of Dominion

In an article in the Journal of Creation, Andrew S.
Kulikovsky argues that the dominion mandate was
established by God, and that it was a commandment
which is still enforced today.

Please note that Kulikovsky is only engaged here
because he conveniently presented the exact opposite
position to what is presented in this paper. Therefore,
it is helpful for the reader to see an opposing view and
to be able to go read the entire Kulikovsky article for
a compare and contrast.

Kulikovsky argues that mankind rules over
creation, and that creation exists for the benefit of
man. He wrote:

As noted in a previous article, human beings are
subject to God, while the rest of the creation is
subject to mankind and exists for our benefit. In
other words, God rules over mankind, who rules
over the rest of creation. (cf. Psalm 8) (Kulikovsky
2012, p. 46).

But the Kulikovsky answer of man ruling over
the Creation does not line up with the Bible. He
references Psalm chapter 8 as a proof text, but he
misunderstands it. Psalm 8:6 states:

You have made him to have dominion over the works of
Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, …

This passage is not about mankind; it is referring
to the coming Jewish Messiah. This is confirmed by
Rabbi Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:27 when he quotes
Psalm 8:6 when he is speaking of the Messiah and
the dominion that He has. Paul wrote:

For “He has put all things under His feet. …”

In fact, in the book of Job, God, Himself went
through great lengths to point out how man does not
rule over creation:

Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook,
Or snare his tongue with a line which you lower?
Can you put a reed through his nose,
Or pierce his jaw with a hook?
Will he make many supplications to you?
Will he speak softly to you?
Will he make a covenant with you?
Will you take him as a servant forever? (Job 41:1–4)

Lay your hand on him;
Remember the battle—
Never do it again! (Job 41:8)

The entire point the Lord made to Job is that man
is wholly impotent to rule this creature, even while
using extreme force. The Lord tells Job, that the very
thing Kulikovsky is arguing for, is the very thing man
is powerless to do. It is evident that sin fundamentally
changed the dominion relationship between man and
beast and man no longer rules over the beast.

Was Creation “Very Good?”

Kulikovsky argues that in the beginning, before the
Fall of Adam, that there was a rebellious tendency to
the Creation itself. He argues that having dominion
over the Creation meant that Adam was commanded
by God, to be aggressive and conquer a less than
willing original creation.

He is pulling this concept from the micro-analysis
of both kâbash (subdue) and râdâh (dominion) in the
Genesis 1:28 passage which states:

“… Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue
(kâbash) it, have dominion (râdâh) over …”

The definitions of kâbash and râdâh do contain
coercive, forceful elements. Meaning, the language
implied that Adam could, by shear force implement
his will on all of his subjects through aggressive
domination. And because Adam had this ability,
Kulikovsky concludes that the “very good” Creation
must have been obstinate and uncooperative from the
beginning.

He cites the Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament as the authority to confirm this accusation
of the Lord’s work.

Kabas assumes that the party being subdued is hostile to
the subduer [emphasis added], necessitating some sort
of coercion if the subduing is to take place … Therefore
“subdue” in Genesis 1:28 implies that creation will not
do man’s bidding gladly or easily and that man must
now bring creation into submission by main strength
(Harris, Archer, and Waltke 1980, p. 430).

Kulikovsky clearly indicates, by using this
commentary as a proof text, that the Creation was
hardwired, from the beginning, to resist the dominion
of Adam. One should note, that if the Creation was
originally hostile to Adam, then it would have been
dangerous to Adam. For, hostility does not exist
without the threat of danger.

Furthermore, the commentary he stakes his
argument on makes it abundantly clear that this
hostility was present in Genesis 1:28, which is before
the Fall.

Kulikovsky then cites, two other sources of his
choosing, which he believes echo a similar point:
Koehler et al. (1994–2000) and VanGemeren (1997).

He then fleshes out this concept of a resistant
creation and what it inherently means. Due to his
belief that the original creation was hostile to Adam,
these scenarios that Kulikovsky lays out would have
been applicable before the Fall with his view (which is
shared by many theologians, may I add).

What is in view here is for humanity to manipulate
the created order so that it better serves our needs
and purposes (Kulikovsky 2012, p. 45).

Exercising human dominion would imply working
hard ground by breaking it up, aerating the soil in
order to allow seed germination, and adding fertilizers
(Kulikovsky 2012, p. 45).

Therefore, exercising dominion implies that we
force the water to flow to places where it would not
normally flow. This could be achieved by digging
irrigation trenches or using a mechanism to pump the
water though [sic] pipes to the required destination
(Kulikovsky 2012, p. 45).

It should be noted that it is a mainstay of the young-earth
creation model, that all such struggle with
nature was a result of the Fall. This bizarre stance
of Kulikovsky finds itself an eager bedfellow with
Hugh Ross’s ideas that the result of sin wasn’t really
that drastic. Even more alarming is that it places
survival of the fittest before the Fall, for hostility is
not hostility if it does not end with one will surviving
the opposition of another.

By Kulikovsky positioning creation as being
initially hostile to Adam, he argues, perhaps
unwittingly, that the original very good creation was
actually in need of improvement (digging drainage
ditches). Such a low view of God’s creation, and its
ability to not completely provide for Adam’s needs is
alarming. For it lessens the sin of eating from the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because Adam
may have argued he ate out of need, and not out of
selfishness. This could place the fault at God’s hands
for not providing a suitable environment for Adam
that allowed for perfect obedience.

Furthermore, Kulikovsky’s idea that the original
dominion implied the instruction to dig irrigation
trenches, develop mechanisms to pump water onto
unproductive, hard soils needing fertilization flies in
the face of what we learn happens in Genesis 3:19,
where only then, after sin, did the need to farm by the
“sweat of the brow” become a reality.

Therefore, Kulikovsky’s conclusions, no matter how
sound he thinks his exegesis of the Hebrew words are,
and no matter how many people he gets to confirm his
starting position, land him in a thorny theological
place. For Kulikovsky’s outcomes are disastrous for
the biblical model of a very good God, and very good
creation.

A quick use of logic would have saved Kulikovsky
and his theological brethren from making the poor
conclusion that hostility was present before the Fall.

Yes, it is true that the Hebrew words for dominion
and subdue give the ability to enforce. However, to be
given a power to rule does not imply that which is to
be ruled to be unruly. To be given the power to control
does not mean that, which is to be controlled, has a
predisposition to be uncontrollable.

As an example, one could give the instruction to an
artist to shape an object through force, manipulation,
and coercion to the desired outcome of the artist. The
instruction implies that the artist has every right to
force upon the object any desire the artist so wishes.
The artist has the right of both kâbash (subdue) and
râdâh (dominion) over the object in which the artist
is shaping.

But the amount and intensity of the force that is
necessary is directly a result of the resistance of the
object. A soft, pliable, pure, supple, moist lump of
clay, which responds to every motion of the potter
would make the force needed minimal, and the
effort to subdue nearly forgettable. Yet, force and
coercion still exist, but the object responds willingly.
Therefore, the force used is only one of volition, and
not one of struggle. And the result is a harmony
between the potter and the clay, and the ruler and
the ruled. This type of harmony is what would have
been in place between Adam and the Creation before
the Fall.

Kulikovsky also argues that, in a post-Fall world,
that ownership over something must mean control
over something. Again, this is fallacious. One does
not mean the other. Kulikovsky cites Psalm 115:6
that states the Creation was given to man (which
happened in the pre-Fall Creation). From there he
concludes, without considering any context of the Fall,
that man has control over creation.

Again, one does not mean the other. If a donkey is
given to a man it does not mean the donkey is going
to walk whenever the man tugs the bridle (and if the
donkey kicks its owner it would be the donkey that
forces the owner to move). Just because this creation
is the mortal home of man it does not mean that the
home obeys man or that we can subdue it into not
having tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes,
lightning strikes, and the like. It is obvious that
the original sin of Adam changed man’s control and
dominion was forfeited.

The exegetical error that Kulikovsky committed
was focusing on the smallest literary fragment while
disregarding the pre-eminent context of life before
the fall. In biblical studies one cannot dissect the
smallest unit, without any regard to the whole, and
then infer judgments on the whole and expect a sound
outcome.

To be preoccupied with the smallest units of literary
tradition may have its purposes; but the exercise is
ultimately of limited value. A totality—things in
combination—often possess properties and engenders
qualities neither carried by nor necessarily inherent
in any of its discrete components (Sarna 1989,
p. xvi).

It is useful to offer a competing Hebraic commentary
to the texts Kulikovsky offered. Note how the JPS
Torah Commentary involves the context of not only
the opening lines of Genesis, but understanding
what the book of Genesis is, on a whole, and how
that helps them understand properly the units. It
even brings an understanding of the Messiah into
the discussion.

They shall rule The verbs used here and in verse 28
express the coercive power of the monarch, consonant
with explanation just given for “the image of God.”
This power, however, cannot include the license to
exploit nature banefully, for the following reasons: the
human race is not inherently sovereign, but enjoys its
dominion solely by the grace of God. Furthermore,
the model of kingship here presupposed is Israelite,
according to which, the monarch does not possess
unrestrained power and authority; the limits of his
rule are carefully defined and circumscribed by
divine law, so that the kingship is to be exercised
with responsibility and is subject to accountability.
Moreover, man, the sovereign of nature, is conceived
at this stage to be functioning within the context of a
“very good” world in which the interrelationships of
organisms with their environment and with each other
are entirely harmonious and mutually beneficial, an
idyllic situation that is clearly illustrated in Isaiah’s
vision of the ideal future king (Isaiah 11:1–9) (Sarna
1989, pp. 12–13).

Note the understanding that dominion and rule
were products solely by the grace of God and one is
accountable for that rule (and with accountability
comes consequences). Also note how the very good
Creation is in harmony with Adam, in every way,
as opposed to Kulikovsky et al’s assertions that the
Creation would “not do man’s bidding gladly” even
before the Fall. Traditionally, the young-earth model
lines up with this Jewish perspective of a very good
creation.

Furthermore, The JPS Torah Commentary,
though not messianic in a sense that Yeshua was and
is the Jewish Messiah, rightly connects the kind of
idyllic dominion granted to Adam to the dominion
of Messiah, the last Adam. Isaiah 11:1–9 points to
the redemption of mankind under the last Adam (a
phrase revealed in the new covenant Scriptures
1 Corinthians 15:45), and foretells of a future authority
that will have all dominion with an environment
where the wolf dwells with the lamb, the leopard lies
down with the young goat, and the calf is next to the
lion. It is an environment where a child plays over the
hole of a cobra and nothing shall be hostile. It is the
environment where the child leads the lion and the
calf together. The child exhibits true dominion that
the creatures obey. That is the picture of what the
original dominion, given to Adam would have been
like. Yet, in today’s world, that lion eats the child and
the calf.

Clearly, without any hesitation, if a mind has not
surrendered to peer pressure, everyone should easily
recognize that Adam’s dominion has failed and is
defunct.

Ultimately, Kulikovsky’s approach to man’s
dominion mirrors the original sin to exalt ourselves.
It conveniently forgets that at the entrance of Adam’s
sin mankind went from makers of the law to those
under a law, and from those who had grace to those
who need grace. It is quite an incredulous conclusion
to believe that those condemned under the law are the
ones with the dominion.

A Redeemed Dominion

A deeper issue is this: does the dominion of Messiah,
in whom those who are born again now belong, allow
the believer to exercise the dominion of Messiah while
still on earth?

The key is understanding from whom this dominion
came. The original dominion given to Adam has
ceased to exist and did not survive the great offense
against God. Fallen man has no claim, stake, or power
of dominion, for those condemned are enslaved to the
dominion of death and darkness, as every believer
once was.

However, for the born again, for those who have
tasted the heavenly gift, and have been redeemed
into the perfection of Messiah, their citizenship is
found in heaven (Philippians 3:20) and have become
one body in Messiah (1 Corinthians 12:12). The born
again have been given the birthright of being heirs
with Him (Romans 8:17). This is a new dominion
perfectly established through Yeshua.

The question can now arise; does this dominion
translate now to the believer while still finishing the
race in this fallen world?

The Bible confirms that it does, but there is a
proviso the size of a mustard seed. This condition
is faith, which is exercised within the will of God.
Peter could walk on the water, with faith in Yeshua,
which is trusting that Yeshua had rule/dominion over
everything (Matthew 14:29–32). It was not by Peter’s
own dominion in which he walked upon the water;
it was accomplished through Messiah. And when
Peter’s faith in Messiah failed, so did the walking on
the water.

Therefore, Peter could not exercise his own
dominion, but through faith, Yeshua could exercise
His in Peter. This is confirmed in Matthew 17:19–20
in the well-known mustard seed comparison where
faith could even enable dominion over mountains.

This new dominion is recorded in the gospel of
Luke:

Then the seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord,
even the demons are subject to us in Your name.” And
He said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from
heaven. Behold, I give you the authority to trample
on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of
the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are
subject to you, but rather rejoice because your names
are written in heaven” (Luke 10:17–20).

Upon the return of the 70, we see astonishment
that even demons are in subjection to them through
the name of Yeshua. The Messiah answered them
and said He had given them the authority to tread
down upon serpents and scorpions (the natural world
as well). The astonishment from the 70 came because
the people recognized they had no dominion over these
things before, but through Messiah’s name, a new
dominion, a new authority was given which allowed
them to tread down on the enemy and on things in the
natural that would do harm to them.

Obviously, if the Adamic dominion was still intact,
the Messiah would not have needed to give them the
power, through His name, to exercise dominion. If the
Adamic dominion was still intact, the 70 would not
have been astonished that the demons were subjected
to them. If the Adamic dominion was still intact,
they would not have needed the new power, through
Yeshua’s name, to tread down upon serpents and
scorpions.

Let us not forget that one of the definitions of
râdâh, the word for dominion in Genesis, is to tread
down upon nature. It is no mere coincidence that the
Messiah, the last Adam, invoked similar language
and it is no mere coincidence that the 70 made it
known that this dominion came only through the
name of Yeshua. This is messianic evidence, from
the mouth of Yeshua, that any dominion of man now
must be through the name of Messiah, and through
His dominion.

Was Adam Responsible for a Moral Law of God before the Fall?

Is it possible that Adam had other moral
responsibilities that he was accountable for, like the
keeping of the Sabbath, as it has been suggested to this
author? This might seem like a fair question at face
value, because in Genesis 2:3 we see the Lord blessing
the Sabbath day and making it holy. However, there
is not a responsibility to Adam for the keeping of the
Sabbath, nor were there any other additional moral
instructions, or law, in which he was responsible.

It is not proper exegesis to retrofit the Ten
Commandments or the other mitzvot into the first
two chapters of Genesis before the Fall. One must
remember what the commandments of God revealed.
The Apostle Paul, the Jewish Rabbi in the New
Covenant Scriptures explained that through the law
comes the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20).

Yet, Adam and Eve, before Genesis 3:6, had no
knowledge of sin, because they had not eaten of the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore,
there could not have been a so called “law of God”
that went any further than the singular instruction
to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
because the known existence of a deeper moral law
would have presupposed a knowledge of sin on Adam
and Eve’s part.

We must accept the plain reading of the text and
surmise that the moral responsibility Adam had to
God, in its totality before the Fall, was confined to
one instruction: do not eat of the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil (Genesis 2:16). To assume further
responsibility would assume a deeper law. To assume
a deeper law would cause Adam and Eve to have a
knowledge of sin, because Romans 3:20 states that
“… for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Therefore,
where there is no sin, there can be no Law.

Even more, if we apply further moral responsibilities
to Adam, then we must account for penance for their
failures, and that would have meant sacrifices, for a
blood sacrifice is required for the forgiveness of sin
(Hebrews 9:22). And a blood sacrifice, occurring before
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is eaten
from, is unthinkable within the biblical landscape.

Dominion and The Image of God

A few have tried to combine the image of God
and man’s dominion into one idea. But, we must be
careful not to allow beliefs about the image of God to
overburden our understanding of man’s dominion.

Schleiermacher speaks of the image as human
domination over nature, a view expounded in more
recent days by Hans Wolff and L. Verdium (Elwell
2009, p. 733).

Though the image of God and the dominion of man
are related in some respects, they are not synonymous.
Adam’s dominion was an appointment to a position;
whereas the image of God was a condition of man’s
creation. Therefore, this paper correctly treats the
two separately and appropriately addresses dominion
without needing to explain the image.

However, in saying that, if one believes a discussion
on man’s dominion cannot be had without a discussion
on the image of God, then that person does not
understand either. Let us not deceive ourselves on
this matter. Many pastors, professors, and teachers
speak of the image of God with a confidence as if they
really know what it is. But too often that is a false
bravado.

Unfortunately, Scripture never says in so many
words what is meant by the highly intriguing term
“the image of God” (Luter 2008, p. 247)

No matter how confident someone sounds when
they are speaking of the image of God, the truth is
most draw a blank on what really is the image of
God. This is why Millard Erickson speaks of differing
views and theories on the matter.

There are three general ways of viewing the nature
of the image. Some consider the image to consist of
certain characteristics within the very nature of the
human, either physical or psychological/spiritual.
This view we will call the substantive view of the
image. Others regard the image not as something
inherently or intrinsically present in humans, but as
the experiencing of a relationship between the human
and God, or between two or more humans. This is
the relational view. Finally, some consider the image
to be, not something a human is or experiences, but
something a human does. This is the functional view
(Erickson 2009, p. 520).

Some respected texts simply state the Bible does
not teach us what exactly is the Image of God.

Christian thinkers have tried to locate the image of
God (Imago Dei) in various dimensions of man’s being,
including man’s spirit, soul, rationality, will mind,
personhood, immortality, and even his physical body.
But Scripture is not specific as to exactly what it is
about man that constitutes the image of God (Brand,
Draper, Butler, and England 2003, pp. 806–807).

Because the image of God has been a source of such
speculation, it is not a wise practice to use one’s own
view of the image of God to shape other important
doctrines. It is best to take what is clear to understand
the vague, rather than to take the vague to confuse
the clear.

Conclusion

There is biblical evidence that God fundamentally
changed man’s relationship with the animal kingdom
after the Flood. There is biblical evidence that nature
was changed after the Fall in Genesis 3:17 that made
nature an obstacle to man. There is naturalistic
evidence that nature is an obstacle to man. There is
naturalistic evidence that the animal kingdom does
not recognize man’s authority or dominion. There is
biblical evidence that animals do not recognize any
dominion of man. There is biblical evidence that sin
and death have dominion in the fallen world. There
is naturalistic evidence that everything in nature
dies even when opposed to the wish of man. There
is biblical evidence that Satan has a throne, claims
authority, and sin and death are connected to his
works.

There is biblical evidence that this dominion of death
is ultimately defeated by the dominion of Messiah,
which was established by God. There is biblical
evidence that those who become born again are then
transferred from the dominion of sin and death into
the dominion of Messiah, and forego the judgment of
wrath. So inclusion into the dominion of Messiah is
what relieves all the previous powers, dominions, and
judgments that fallen man was subjected to.

There is biblical evidence that through the name of
Messiah, and through His dominion, both the natural
and the supernatural are in subjection to redeemed
man when there is faith. There is biblical evidence
that in the Messianic kingdom to follow that the child
shall lead the lion, and a fattened calf, demonstrating
the animal kind recognizing the child’s dominion,
through the Messiah. There is naturalistic evidence
that in the current life a child is killed by such
predators and disobeyed by calves, thereby refuting
the idea of the child having a dominion over the
animal kingdom in this life.

The biblical sequence of dominion then is as
follows:

Adam was given dominion over the animal kind
and creation. He then forfeited that dominion to Satan,
sin and death, which is also called the dominion of
darkness. This happened when Adam disobeyed
the command of God to not eat of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil. Due to Adam’s sin, God
changed man’s relationship with nature and animals
so that neither animals, nor nature, recognize fallen
man’s dominion.

Messiah then came and claimed victory over the
dominion of death and sin and God placed everything
under the feet of the Lord the Messiah who
demonstrated dominion over nature and animals.
Then, when one is born again, they are transferred
from the dominion of death, into the dominion of
the Messiah. The born again is never to establish
their own dominion, nor can they, but they serve the
dominion of Messiah forever and ever.

It is possible, through faith, to operate within
the dominion of Yeshua for the born again believer.
However, the unrepentant sinner has no dominion,
rule, or authority of their own, and remains in bondage
to the domain of darkness, which controls their lives
and destiny.

This understanding of dominion, as laid out in
this paper, rings in perfect harmony with the gospel.
For all are lost under the curse of sin. Then, through
Messiah alone, are all redeemed. The preeminence of
Messiah is supreme.

Therefore, the dominion mandate, which states
that all mankind has a standing command or order
to have dominion over the earth, due to the dominion
granted to Adam, is not a biblically supported idea.

Answers Research Journal

2013 Volume 6

Cutting-edge creation research. Free. Answers Research Journal (ARJ) is a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.

Footnotes

In a personal communication with Dr. Horace Skipper, soil microbiologist and Professor Emeritus of Clemson University, he described a biological warfare in the soil due to the attacking entities, which feed on the seed of the crop and compete for soil nutrients. Farmers must fight back or suffer a loss of crop.